Tue, May 13, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 15, Issue 48 (2023)
JMED 2023, 15(48): 9-20 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.IAU.SARI.REC.1401.061
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghanavatizadeh A, Mahmoudi G, Jahani M. Evaluation of online teaching during the covid-19 pandemic in medical students: A case study in northern Iran. JMED 2023; 15 (48) :9-20
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1717-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1717-en.html
1- Ms.c. Student of Medical & Health Services Administration, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Ira
2- Associate professor of Hospital Administration Research Center, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran ,Ghahraman48@yahoo.com
3- Associate Professor of Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Health Research Institute, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Ira
2- Associate professor of Hospital Administration Research Center, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran ,
3- Associate Professor of Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Health Research Institute, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Ira
Abstract: (1885 Views)
Background & Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has made universities of medical sciences face serious challenges as they are responsible for the preparation of the next generation of healthcare workers. The present study aimed to evaluate the online education of medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic, in Mazandaran province, Iran.
Materials & Methods: This descriptive and analytical research was carried out from April 2022 to January 2023 in the universities of medical sciences in the Mazandaran province (Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Babol University of Medical Sciences, and Faculty of Medical Sciences of Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch). The participants were selected using the stratified random sampling method, and the sample size was calculated at 507 students. The required data was collected using a questionnaire and analyzed in SPSS software (version 21). It should be mentioned that a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The mean age of the students was 21.47 ± 2.34 years, with an age range of 18-43 years. Their mean scores in the dimensions of research, namely interacting, teaching, and learning, were 34.54±8.23, 53.93±10.15, and 33.8±8.01, respectively. The undergraduate students on average acquired 3.72, 1.25, and 1.00 more units of score in the three dimensions of interacting, teaching, and learning, respectively; however, this difference was only significant for the interaction dimension (P<0.001). The results showed that among the variables, the year of study and the level of education had a relationship with the total score (P<0.05) and were identified as independent and strong predictor variables for online education.
Conclusion: Online education during the COVID-19 pandemic could become a suitable alternative to the traditional method of medical education. The most important factors that affect the quality of online education have been identified. Therefore, educational policymakers provide the required plans by considering the effective factors and attempt to improve the quality of online education by providing the necessary conditions and facilities
Materials & Methods: This descriptive and analytical research was carried out from April 2022 to January 2023 in the universities of medical sciences in the Mazandaran province (Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Babol University of Medical Sciences, and Faculty of Medical Sciences of Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch). The participants were selected using the stratified random sampling method, and the sample size was calculated at 507 students. The required data was collected using a questionnaire and analyzed in SPSS software (version 21). It should be mentioned that a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The mean age of the students was 21.47 ± 2.34 years, with an age range of 18-43 years. Their mean scores in the dimensions of research, namely interacting, teaching, and learning, were 34.54±8.23, 53.93±10.15, and 33.8±8.01, respectively. The undergraduate students on average acquired 3.72, 1.25, and 1.00 more units of score in the three dimensions of interacting, teaching, and learning, respectively; however, this difference was only significant for the interaction dimension (P<0.001). The results showed that among the variables, the year of study and the level of education had a relationship with the total score (P<0.05) and were identified as independent and strong predictor variables for online education.
Conclusion: Online education during the COVID-19 pandemic could become a suitable alternative to the traditional method of medical education. The most important factors that affect the quality of online education have been identified. Therefore, educational policymakers provide the required plans by considering the effective factors and attempt to improve the quality of online education by providing the necessary conditions and facilities
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Received: 2022/09/20 | Accepted: 2023/01/13 | Published: 2023/02/28
Received: 2022/09/20 | Accepted: 2023/01/13 | Published: 2023/02/28
References
1. Aristovnik A, Keržič D, Ravšelj D, Tomaževič N, Umek L. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability. 2020; 13;12(20):8438. [DOI]
2. Dewart G, Corcoran L, Thirsk L, Petrovic K. Nursing education in a pandemic: Academic challenges in response to COVID-19. Nurse education today. 2020;92:104471. [DOI]
3. Ferrel MN, Ryan JJ. The impact of COVID-19 on medical education. Cureus. 2020.31;12(3). [DOI] [PubMed]
4. Anggriawan R. Preschool teachers’ perspectives and challenges in online teaching and learning during COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. INDONESIA FOCUS 2020 2020 ; 15. [DOI]
5. Bao W. COVID‐19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human behavior and emerging technologies. 2020; 2(2):113-5. [DOI]
6. Al-Balas M, Al-Balas HI, Jaber HM, Obeidat K, Al-Balas H, Aborajooh EA, Al-Taher R, Al-Balas B. Distance learning in clinical medical education amid COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan: current situation, challenges, and perspectives. BMC medical education. 2020; 20(1): 1-7. [DOI]
7. Martay JL, Martay H, Carpes FP. BodyWorks: interactive interdisciplinary online teaching tools for biomechanics and physiology teaching. Advances in Physiology Education. 2021 1; 45(4): 715-9. [DOI]
8. Wiedenmann C, Wacker K, Böhringer D, Maier P, Reinhard T. Online-Untersuchungskurs statt Präsenzveranstaltung: Anpassung der studentischen Lehre im Medizinstudium während der COVID-19-Pandemie. Der Ophthalmologe. 2022; 119(1): 11-8. [DOI]
9. Wilcha RJ. Effectiveness of virtual medical teaching during the COVID-19 crisis: systematic review. JMIR medical education. 2020; 18;6(2):e20963. [DOI]
10. Bolliger DU, Martin F. Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education. 2018 ; 2; 39(4): 568-83. [DOI]
11. WinklerPrins AM, Weisenborn BN, Groop RE, Arbogast AF. Developing online geography courses: experiences from Michigan State University. Journal of Geography. 2007;106(4):163-70. [DOI]
12. Gedik N, Kiraz E, Ozden MY. Design of a blended learning environment: Considerations and implementation issues. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2013;28;29(1). [DOI]
13. Bolliger DU, Armier Jr DD. Active learning in the online environment: The integration of student-generated audio files. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2013;14(3):201-11. [DOI]
14. Berge ZL. Active, interactive, and reflective elearning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 2002;3(2):181-90.
15. Johnson S. Applying the Seven Principles of Good Practice: Technology as a Lever-in an Online Research Course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 2014;13(2).
16. Lewis CC, Abdul-Hamid H. Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education. 2006;31(2):83-98. [DOI]
17. Mottaghi A, Alibeik N, Savaj S, Shakiba B, Alimoradzadeh R, Almasi S, et al. Comparison of Virtual and Actual Education Models on the Learning of Internal Interns During the Pandemic of COVID-19.Research Square 2021:1-29. [DOI]
18. Ramírez-Hurtado JM, Hernández-Díaz AG, López-Sánchez AD, Pérez-León VE. Measuring online teaching service quality in higher education in the COVID-19 environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 1;18(5):2403. [DOI]
19. Khalili H. Online interprofessional education during and post the COVID-19 pandemic: a commentary. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2020; 2;34(5):687-90. [DOI]
20. Schlenz MA, Schmidt A, Wöstmann B, Krämer N, Schulz-Weidner N. Students’ and lecturers’ perspective on the implementation of online learning in dental education due to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): A cross-sectional study. BMC medical education. 2020;20(1):1-7. [DOI]
21. Hofmann H, Harding C, Youm J, Wiechmann W. Virtual bedside teaching rounds with patients with COVID‐19. Medical education. 2020; 13. [DOI]
22. Fallahi V, Mikaeli N, Atadokht A, Ahmadi S. The role of self-regulation and alienation in Predict educational achievement motivation of students. Shenakht journal of psychology & psychiatry. 2019 ; 10;6(5):72-82. [DOI]
23. Mack HG, Golnik KC, Murray N, Filipe HP. Models for implementing continuing professional development programs in low-resource countries. MedEdPublish. 2017 ; 1;6(1). [DOI]
24. Halinski RS, Feldt LS. The selection of variables in multiple regression analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement. 1970;7(3):151-7. [DOI]
25. Miller DE, Kunce JT. Prediction and statistical overkill revisited. Measurement and evaluation in guidance. 1973 1;6(3):157-63. [DOI]
26. Johnson PO. Development of the sample survey as a scientific methodology. The Journal of Experimental Education. 1959 1;27(3):167-76. [DOI]
27. Çakýroglu Ü. Evaluating students’ perspectives about virtual classrooms with regard to seven principles of good practice. South African Journal of Education. 2014 ; 21;34(2). [DOI]
28. Kline RB. Book review: Psychometric theory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 1999;17(3):275-80.
29. Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SA. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American journal of mental deficiency. 1981;86:127-37.
30. Reyna J. Twelve Tips for COVID-19 friendly learning design in medical education. MedEdPublish. 2020 May 20;9. [DOI]
31. Tanis CJ. The seven principles of online learning: Feedback from faculty and alumni on its importance for teaching and learning. Research in Learning Technology. 2020; 17;28. [DOI]
32. Lee J. An exploratory study of effective online learning: Assessing satisfaction levels of graduate students of mathematics education associated with human and design factors of an online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.erudit 2014;15(1):111-32. [DOI]
33. Gallien T, Oomen-Early J. Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor?. International Journal on E-learning. 2008;7(3):463-76.
34. Magnussen L. Applying the principles of significant learning in the e-learning environment. Journal of Nursing Education. 2008;47(2):82-6. [DOI]
35. Craig R. The 3 instructional shifts that will redefine the college professor. EdSurge. Available at:2015. [Article]
36. Das S, Al Mushaiqri M. Anatomy online teaching during Covid‐19 pandemic: The need for responsive anatomy learning ecosystem. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2021; 1. [DOI]
37. Jiang Z, Zhu D, Li J, Ren L, Pu R, Yang G. Online dental teaching practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional online survey from China. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):1-9. [DOI]
38. Delgado T, Bhark SJ, Donahue J. Pandemic Teaching: Creating and teaching cell biology labs online during COVID‐19. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education. 2021;49(1):32-7. [DOI]
39. Rossettini G, Geri T, Turolla A, Viceconti A, Scumà C, Mirandola M, Dell’Isola A, Gianola S, Maselli F, Palese A. Online teaching in physiotherapy education during COVID-19.
40. pandemic in Italy: a retrospective case-control study on students’ satisfaction and performance. BMC Medical Education. 2021;21(1):1-7. [DOI]
41. Potts SE, Shields SG, Upshur CC. Preparing future leaders: an integrated quality improvement residency curriculum.Family Medicin 2016:48(6):477-481. [DOI]
42. Zubkoff L, Neily J, Delanko V, Young-Xu Y, Boar S, Bulat T, Mills PD. How to prevent falls and fall-related injuries: a virtual breakthrough series collaborative in long term care. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics. 2019; 2;37(4):234-46. [DOI]
43. Hargreaves MB, Orfield C, Honeycutt T, Vine M, Cabili C, Coffee-Borden B, Morzuch M, Lebrun-Harris LA, Fisher SK. Addressing childhood obesity through multisector collaborations: evaluation of a national quality improvement effort. Journal of Community Health. 2017;42(4):656-63. [DOI]
44. Baernholdt M, Feldman M, Davis-Ajami ML, Harvey LD, Mazmanian PE, Mobley D, Murphy JK, Watts C, Dow A. An interprofessional quality improvement training program that improves educational and quality outcomes. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2019;34(6):577-84. [DOI]
45. Thom ML, Kimble BA, Qua K, Wish‐Baratz S. Is remote near‐peer anatomy teaching an effective teaching strategy? Lessons learned from the transition to online learning during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Anatomical sciences education. 2021;14(5):552-61. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
